The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-04-01

What Can Be Made Out of Cardinal Glib
bons's Relations to the Knights of Labor.
New York Times
If Cardinal Gibbons were secular instead of
an ecclesiastical statesman, and were in quest OF
an elective Office, he would be in fair way to
secure .'the labor vote Governor Hill. of New
York and Governor Green, of New Jersey, must
look with certain envy at the bold and thor
oughgoing way in which he Endorses" the
knights Of Labor and all their acts. They adj
mire him, possibly, the more because they do
not dare to initiate him.
In truth, the method Of Cardinal Gibbons,
though excellent for its specific purpose of capt
uring the labor vote, is open to the objection
votes cast by mon of sense and reflection, whoss
influence goes considerably beyond their own
votes. 1t suits him TO judge the tree, not by its
fruits, but by what the nurseryman says about
it. If we were to judge the Knights of Labor by
the utterances of Powderly should suppose
the order to be kind of benevolent debating So
ciety, in which the relief OF the poor and
needy aternated with the discussion of
prospectuses for the millennium. The only posi-
BILE objection to it would be that its aims were
too vague and remote to be made the objects Of
any practical human effort. Bnt it would be ad-
mttej that if they begued the leisure of the work
ingmen they did nobody else any harm. It is
only when we begin to take account of what the
order has actually done instead Of what its lead
ers say it would like to accomplish that it is
seen to be an organization hostile to progress
and to civilization, and hostile to religion in so
far as religion is an agency for securing these
ends. In the report OF Cardinal Gibbons. Of
which the full text has now been published it
appears even more than in the incomplete ac-
counts of it heretofore published that his Emf
hence refrains from offending the knights SIM
ply by ignoring all that they have done, and by
insisting only upon what they have said In
the first place, he says. they did not invent
strikes: in the second. wrath and violence are
often inevitable in tho struggles Of the poor
against hard and obstinate monopoly" in the
third place the laws and principal authorities of
the Knights $50 far from encouraging violence,
exercise powerful preventive influence"
Now it is true that the Knights did not invent
strikes 1t is also true that the one thing they
have achieved as an order is to extend strikes by
means of the boycott which virtually they have
invented. The boycott, when carried to its log
ical conclusion, is device for running the bust
ness OF every man who resists the demand OF
any number of Knights in his employ, and for
emitting him off from his kind. 1t is kind of
major accommodation pronounced by the
Knights upon any body who offends any of them,
and, if it could be enforced. it would have the
same terrors as the actual accommodation had
six seven hundred years ago, but, doubtless
to the regret of Cardinal Gibbons has no longer.
1t is perfectly notorious that the merits of the
case in which the boycott il invoked have coth-
ing to do with its imposition In effect dissatis-
fed workmen become judges in their own cause.
contrary to the first principles of Justice, and
in1lct penalties devised by themselves through
the agency of the noble and holy order
The discharge of man from his en-
ploymeut in Baltimore because he bad
procured the discharge of thief in New York is
an example of what is done by the associated &C
ton of the Knights. Yet. Cardinal Gibbons as
sures Us that ''it is unreasonable to attribute
violence to the Knights as to attribute to the
church the follies and crimes OF her children
against which she protests." If the protests Of
the church were as unavailing as the protests oil
Mr. Powderly, and it the same wrongs We're done
under cover of her authority az arc done in VII
tue of the organization of the Knights, it woulC
not be unjust at all to hold the church to account
for them.
AS for the talk about hard and obstinate mo
nopolies, we DISLIKE to saw it about dignitary
Of the church, but the Cardinal ought to b,
ashamed of himself for repeating it. Were tn,
officers of the Old Dominion Steamship Com
pany hard and obstinate monopolists when the,
engaged men to do their work at wages will
which the men were content, and in return be
came the objects of a conspiracy to ruin thei
business2 Were the coal companies, who's
workmen threw down their tools at the word o
command. declaring that they did not know
what they were doing it for, and that they ha
no grievance. also hard and obstinate monopo
| istsi Or. were Mrs. Gray and Mrs. Landgraf
| who hired at wages satisfactory on both side
| men who were prevented by the Knights o
| Labor from earning themf In all these case
| it seems to secular observer that the thar
| and obstinate monopoly" that Of tn
men who tried to keep other men idle and desti
/ tute.
| That the Cardinal should 60 out Of his way |
] defend the organization Of which such thine
| are the fruits IS performance one 10 quite at
| loss to understand. Nothing could be more col
| trary to the traditions of the church. or to til
| standing of the church as a conservative inf,
cree in society. If the papacy were an electiy
| Office, and the term OF 1t were quadrennia), an
the incumbent were chosen by universe
| suffrage, it would be easy to explain the Gard
all nnOhn INF hat
| secular statesmen are likely to find out,
might be mistaken. People would say that b
was docking for 1888" As he is not lockin
| for 1888. and as he has no personal ends 10 Ca'i
the conclusion must be that he is a man OF wea
| Judgment, and that the church will make te
| rible blunder if it permits him TO persuade
| irto taking tine side of organization which
| trying to substitute brute force and intinid
ton for law. reason equity and the precepts I
| the Christian religion
Departing Legislatures.
| San Francisco Alta.